Comments on: Independent 8092 / Anaxhttp://www.fifteensquared.net/2012/09/20/independent-8092-anax/
Never knowingly undersolved.Tue, 03 Mar 2015 18:36:07 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.1By: Klingsorhttp://www.fifteensquared.net/2012/09/20/independent-8092-anax/#comment-205972
Mon, 24 Sep 2012 09:57:25 +0000http://fifteensquared.net/?p=49181#comment-205972A very belated thanks for all the good wishes. I celebrated my half century in deepest Dorset with family where I had no access to the Internet, so it was a lovely surprise to read this page on my return.
]]>By: flashlinghttp://www.fifteensquared.net/2012/09/20/independent-8092-anax/#comment-205880
Fri, 21 Sep 2012 23:53:13 +0000http://fifteensquared.net/?p=49181#comment-205880Gaufrid’s back home I’m told, I expect a few words might be had soon… but B&J has it right, this isn’t the Guardian’s own website.
]]>By: Kathryn's Dadhttp://www.fifteensquared.net/2012/09/20/independent-8092-anax/#comment-205868
Fri, 21 Sep 2012 20:49:23 +0000http://fifteensquared.net/?p=49181#comment-205868Indeed …
]]>By: Bertandjoycehttp://www.fifteensquared.net/2012/09/20/independent-8092-anax/#comment-205860
Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:56:37 +0000http://fifteensquared.net/?p=49181#comment-205860Come on folks! Enough is enough…….. it’s a crossword …… it’s meant to be enjoyable, which this one certainly was!

It certainly isn’t enjoyable reading some of these comments when you log on to find what people have to say about a great crossword from one of the best setters around.

]]>By: Paul Bhttp://www.fifteensquared.net/2012/09/20/independent-8092-anax/#comment-205856
Fri, 21 Sep 2012 16:54:11 +0000http://fifteensquared.net/?p=49181#comment-205856Oh, so now you’re the expert in IT are you Swaggers? I hope for your clients’ sakes you’re better at that than you are at crosswords!

Subtractive anagramming a few weeks ago: wrong. The simplest of parsings in an Indy puzzle just yesterday: wrong. And no idea, having slagged off knowledgeable people here as ‘pedants’ on more than one occasion, about the finer points when offered the chance to redeem yourself. That’s not condescension Swaggers, that’s simple fact.

Up to you, but hopping around 15^2 with one foot in your mouth, Swaggers: it’s not a good look.

]]>By: anaxhttp://www.fifteensquared.net/2012/09/20/independent-8092-anax/#comment-205838
Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:54:41 +0000http://fifteensquared.net/?p=49181#comment-205838Thanks to B&J for a great blog and to all for your comments. Glad to know the majority found this on the easier side; funny thing with Ninas – you don’t want them to be relied on but there’s always the nagging suspicion that solvers who spot them gain an advantage. I think I went into this with the idea that the acrosses would be slightly harder than the downs, but not sure if it ended up like that.
Just for the record, while a few have noted MAESTRO it was just a lucky placement in the grid. The intended thematic match-up was the symmetrical pairing of WAGNERIAN/CHARACTER.
Once again a very happy 50th to Klingsor/Alberich.
]]>By: JollySwagmanhttp://www.fifteensquared.net/2012/09/20/independent-8092-anax/#comment-205831
Fri, 21 Sep 2012 10:37:09 +0000http://fifteensquared.net/?p=49181#comment-205831There seems to be some confusion here.

The “contributor” at #11 (which I hadn’t noticed) and now again at #16 seems to have the impression that I am interested in having a dialogue with him.

That is not the case, and never will be unless expressly indicated.

This is of course the same notoriously offensive individual who once asked:

“Is it possible to search for a particular individual’s comments in 15^2? If so, how?”

and when it was explained to him that it was not possible using the site’s own search facility replied:

“Thanks Gaufrid. Probably best!”

Sadly, as I later explained, and as any 6 year-old would confirm, it is perfectly easy to do that using a little-known facility called Google, and what a trail of condescension, ad hominem offensiveness and delusions of grandeur that presents to the world, in one particular case.

]]>By: allan_chttp://www.fifteensquared.net/2012/09/20/independent-8092-anax/#comment-205828
Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:40:12 +0000http://fifteensquared.net/?p=49181#comment-205828Only got round to this one this morning after a busy day with grandchildren yesterday. Must say I found it on the easy side for an Anax, even getting ORION straightaway. Filled in the top half of acrosses fairly quickly but the bottom half faltered till I started on the downs, spotted Klingsor in the top unches and thought, ‘Aha, probably Alberich along the bottom’ and was well away.’

Good stuff as usual, Anax; congratulations to you and Klingsor, sorry you can’t make it to Derby in November. And thanks, B&J, for the blog: I needed it for some of the parsing, especially AVAILABLE – the only Colorado ski resort I knew of was Aspen.

in which he regards “for”, “gives etc (“makes and “makes you” would be in that category) as unidirectional and “fair but rather untidily presented”. I have seen good arguments for “for” being bi-directional – “makes” would have to work a bit harder. Alberich goes on to say that he would reluctantly use it to rescue a worthwhile cluing idea which couldn’t otherwise be presented.